erichkeane wrote: > > > I thought CWG's preferred direction on this was to reject entirely? > > > > > > What do they wish to reject? Defining an enum in a different declaration > > context than its primary context? That seems odd. > > Do you have an idea of the CWG DR? We looked but couldn't find anything > > that looked like it. > > [CWG1485](https://cplusplus.github.io/CWG/issues/1485.html): "CWG agreed that > an unscoped opaque enumeration in class scope should be forbidden."
Interesting! WE missed that one looking through. That definitely solves the problem! https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/134998 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
